From owner-freebsd-java@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 31 12:25:04 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F9BB1065672 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:25:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pieter@degoeje.nl) Received: from mx.utwente.nl (mx3.utsp.utwente.nl [130.89.2.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA648FC08 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:25:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nox.student.utwente.nl (nox.student.utwente.nl [130.89.165.91]) by mx.utwente.nl (8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id o0VCOsHH019121; Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:24:54 +0100 From: Pieter de Goeje To: James Mansion Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:24:53 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <201001301816.16987.pieter@degoeje.nl> <201001301958.59731.pieter@degoeje.nl> <4B654FDA.7070603@mansionfamily.plus.com> In-Reply-To: <4B654FDA.7070603@mansionfamily.plus.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201001311324.54206.pieter@degoeje.nl> X-UTwente-MailScanner-Information: Scanned by MailScanner. Contact icts.servicedesk@utwente.nl for more information. X-UTwente-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UTwente-MailScanner-From: pieter@degoeje.nl X-Spam-Status: No Cc: freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OpenJDK 6/7 kqueue based NIO provider X-BeenThere: freebsd-java@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting Java to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:25:04 -0000 On Sunday 31 January 2010 10:39:38 James Mansion wrote: > Pieter de Goeje wrote: > > From a cursory read of the code it can be seen that the existing Sun > > implementations (even the shared part of the code) assumes poll like > > back-ends. This is not a very good match for kqueue because it differs > > (in a > > Would it be worth looking at an implementation that uses libev or libevent? That is an interesting idea, such an implementation could potentially replace all existing back-ends with the exception of the Windows IOCP back-end. However libev doesn't seem to provide a non-blocking poll which is required for NIO (ev_loop always blocks AFAIK). -- Pieter